Tensions in South Ossetia
Hi delegates!
This blog post will be reviewing
the role of South Ossetia in the conflict between Georgia and Russia,
specifically focusing on the events of 2008 and ethnic conflict within the
region.
For
reference, South Ossetia is located along the Georgian-Russian border.
Separatist sentiments have been brewing within South Ossetia since the collapse
of the Soviet Union in 1991. The region of Ossetia, as seen in the map, is split
between Georgia and Russia. Both North and South Ossetia are primarily occupied
by Ossetians, a unique ethnic group which speaks neither Georgian nor Russian.
However, South Ossetia had a significant population of ethnic Georgians living
within the region before the conflict; the treatment of ethnic Georgians in the region is one of the
central issues which our case will be studying.
While
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are both contested territories, South Ossetia is unique because
it is located near the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. Russian interference in the region
has sometimes extended beyond the borders of South Ossetia, which the Georgian government has
taken as a direct threat.
Rising
tensions between Georgia and Russia over the region of South Ossetia led Georgian
troops to move into South Ossetia on August 7, 2008, with Russia retaliating by
mobilizing troops at the border and beginning air strikes in South Ossetia.
Hostilities continued until a ceasefire agreement was signed by both parties on
August 16, 2008. A little over a week later, Russia officially recognized South
Ossetian independence. By the end of the conflict, ethnic Georgians had largely
been displaced despite previously comprising 1/3 of the regional population. You will be tasked with determining whether these
events meet the definition of racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, as
well as identifying who is legally responsible. The issue is very nuanced; Russian
actions in the region have largely been viewed as a precursor to annexation, but
South Ossetian separatist groups have stated their desire to be a fully independent
region. Furthermore, Georgia is considered by much of the international community
to have the rightful claim to the region. Because of these competing interests,
there have been contradicting accounts of the suspected ethnic cleansing, mass
expulsion, and abusive treatment of ethnic Georgians. It is your job to evaluate these claims.
We encourage you to consider the following: How
strong is South Ossetia’s claim to independence? What is the historical
relationship between ethnic Georgians and Ossetians? How might the separation
of North Ossetia and South Ossetia into separate countries affect the issue?
Please share your thoughts below! If you have any questions, feel free
to reach out to us through our committee email.
For more information:
https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/2008-georgia-russia-conflict/index.html
Greetings Everyone!
ReplyDeleteMy name is Cynda Wang, and I'll be representing Serbia in committee.
When it comes to the Declaration of Independence stemming from South Ossetia, the case we can juxtapose it most closely to is likely the ICJ's 2008 Advisory Opinion on the Status of Kosovo. Following the Republic of Kosovo's declaration of independence, the ICJ ruled that international law does not contain prohibitions on declarations of independence. As such, the case of Kosovo's declaration was entirely legal and recognized.
This conflict is so interesting, because both Kosovo and South Ossetia are breakaway republics, however, the one difference is that Kosovo's breakaway was recognized by the United States and the European Three (France, Germany, Italy), while South Ossetia's was supported by Russia. Why does the situation suddenly change, when we're faced with pro-Russians instead?
Currently, Western powers have labelled the case of Kosovo as "Sui Generis" (in a class by itself). As a result, they claim we aren't allowed to technically use it as precedent.
These controversies are unique as we unearth a heavily anti-Russian view can end up shifting the tide of debate. If we end up ruling South Ossetia as an official independent state, we would be very well setting a strong precedent for declarations of independence from here on out...will all states on the brink of declaring independence suddenly all declare?
Hello Delegates! My name is Emily Moreira, and I will be representing the People's Republic of China throughout committee and debate! I'm super excited for the upcoming conference as I find this topic fascinating!
ReplyDeleteInternational Law is a tricky subject to address because different countries have different legal procedures and types of government. For example, the US has an entire Judicial Branch as one its pillars of government which holds almost equal power to the executive and legislative branches. However, not all countries have the same legal procedures, and therefore attempting to establish the validity and precedence of an international court is difficult within our global community.
From China's perspective, it's important to note what type of jurisdiction--and also how much precedence--the ICJ holds in this specific case. Universal Jurisdiction, in particular, is a highly debated subject and most countries seem to hold different opinions on when this jurisdiction is granted to the ICJ. Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes are always granted jurisdiction; however, the situation varies when regarding territorial disputes.
The current Georgia v The Russian Federation case--from China’s perspective--is a territorial dispute with Georgia using circumstantial evidence to support its case. Since this issue is to resolve territorial disputes between four parties, does the ICJ truly hold precedence over this case?
The prosecution will also especially have a hard time upholding its burden of proof throughout trial due to the unstable nature of circumstantial evidence. When two reasonable interpretations of circumstantial evidence are presented during trial--one that points to guilt and another that points to innocence--then the trier of facts (we judges) must adopt the interpretation of innocence, thus adopting the defense’s theory of the case. The prosecution, or Georgia in this situation, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the long term territorial disputes between Georgia and Russia resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Georgians by the Russians. If the defense in this case simply pokes one or two holes in their case and provides reasonable doubt as to whether or not Russia truly committed genocide, then we as the judges must grant Russia the benefit of the doubt.
The delegation of China urges that all members of this committee remember their promise to the international courts to keep bias and politics out of the courtroom. We are here to try an important case which will set the precedence for other countries who declare independence in the future. This being said, always consider all facts of the case.
Can’t wait for debate this weekend!